News Release: Harrisburg Needs to Pay Attention to These Dangerous Court Decisions
May 18, 2012 // afaofpa // Homosexual Agenda, Politics
News Release
For Immediate Release: May 18, 2012
Contact: Diane Gramley 1.814.271.9078 or 1.814.437.5355
Maryland Court of Appeals Decision Shows the Danger of Changing PA Human Relations Act
(Harrisburg) – Today the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in a homosexual ‘divorce’ case that Maryland must recognize same-sex so-called marriages performed in other states. This action takes place as an effort to gather signatures on a petition to force a marriage referendum on the November ballot is underway. The American Family Association of Pennsylvania (AFA of PA) is again issuing a warning about the need to move HB 1434 through the House and to stop any effort to change the PA Human Relations Act to include “sexual orientation.”
“ Judge Glenn Harrell specifically notes in the opinion that Maryland has already passed laws that extend special protections to homosexuals in housing, employment and public accommodation. Thus requiring Maryland to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed in other states is a logical next step for the court. Unlike Maryland, Pennsylvania has a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but the Supreme Court in Iowa used a similar human relations law to strike down that state’s DOMA. Legislators in Harrisburg need to wake up to the dangers posed in these court decisions. Efforts to amend the PA Human Relations Act to include ‘sexual orientation’ is a step towards legalizing same-sex so-called marriages,” noted Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of PA.
The US Department of Justice (USDOJ) has become involved in a Pennsylvania case, filing a brief raising questions about the federal DOMA. The Justice Department argued in December 2011 that passage of the Defense of Marriage Act “was motivated in significant part by animus towards gays and lesbians” — i.e., prejudice and hostility toward homosexuals. More significantly USDOJ said DOMA should be reviewed under “heightened scrutiny” — a standard normally applied to laws that impact, for instance, race and sex.
“Such actions by the Justice Department should be sending red flags up in Harrisburg, but apparently the Republican leadership is asleep at the wheel. The basic building block of our society is under attack by those who seek to redefine it and remake it in their image and no major action is taking place to protect marriage in PA,” Gramley continued.
# # #
Topics: Defense of Marriage Act, HB 1434, Maryland Court of Appeals, same-sex marrige, US Department of Justice
The animus claim is unrealistic. This reasoning is akin to claiming every marriage-defining law is based on dislike and/or prejudice. These attorneys continue to ignore rights to religious freedom because ignoring such basic tenets is the only way to fight them !
Yes, we all have our rights to religious freedom, and I understand that those who are opposed to giving those in the LGBT basic civil rights that are guarenteed for us heterosexual women and men have their beliefs rooted in the Bible, but what we are talking about is a civil issue, not religious. Marriage is a civil issue. Employment non-discrimination is civil. Public accomodations is a civil issue. Churches make these things religious, so let’s compromise. Your churches can ban gay marriage, but dont stop loving people from seeking to spend the rest of their lives with those they love, enjoy the same benefits that everyone else does, and not feel like they are second class citizens….
God instituted marriage and the church before the government. Forcing society to accept homosexuality is not a civil rights issue. The fight for civil rights has nothing to do with the sexual identity one claims. There is a three-part test to determine minority status for those seeking ‘civil rights’:
Immutable (unchangeable) characteristics; political powerlessness and a history of pervasive discrimination.
None of which apply to homosexual activists’ push to change the laws.